1. Field of Invention
This invention relates to new and unusual water repelling forms manufactured within a molded or cast bathtub, and specifically to the areas where the bathtub comes into contact with adjacent vertical or horizontal surfaces.
2. Description of Prior Art
Water penetration of the crack between a bathtub and surrounding adjacent walls and flooring is presently, as it has been in the past, a consistent service, maintenance, and repair problem. There are three major problem areas, all of which have been the target of a multitude of ideas on how to solve them. Some solutions have been partially successful, whereas most have sought a solution in covering up rather than eliminating the problems. The first problem is that of water running down the front face of the bathtub wall and penetrating the space or crack where the base of the bathtub abuts the floor covering surface. Next is the problem of water penetration at the line of contact between the wall and the upper planar surface of the bathtub along the back wall and along each end wall. The third area of concern is at each end of the bathtub, along the rounded corners and down the front ends to the floor. It can still be said, the watertight integrity of all lines of contact between a bathtub, the walls surrounding it, and the flooring abutting it are only as good as the caulk filling them.
Since the bathtub was removed from its legs and was placed on the flooring, adjacent to a wall or walls, inventors have created several methods of attaching or anchoring the bathtub to back and side walls. U.S. Pat. No. 1,615,881 to Lucke (1927) discloses an L-shaped wall bracket mounted to the structural members of a wall on which the downward edge of the bathtub rim is set. Plaster or wallboard is then installed over the bracket and abutted to the upper bathtub surface. This installation method is difficult and does not protect the adjacent walls from moisture. U.S. Pat. No. 1,704,105 to Sauer (1929) shows a bathtub having a rim or wall flange portion which may be imbedded in the wall finish. Here, the mounting bracket, as shown, provides good wall mounting qualities, however the plaster or wallboard is directly exposed to the moisture of the bathtub planar surface, thus having no waterproofing or moisture repelling qualities. U.S. Pat. No. 1,939,115 to Fritsche (1933) discloses an L-shaped wall mounting bracket with an under portion of continued overlapping folds ending with a plurality of suspended hooks for supporting the bathtub wall. A packing of sorts is contained at the bottom of the lower fold, which sits on the upper edge of the bathtub. The weight of the bathtub would bear down on the supporting hooks and pull downwardly on the overlapping fold of metal and let the bathtub settle where it may. The waterproofing is then lost, exposing a wide and unsightly folded metal form which runs the length of the bathtub back and end planar surfaces.
Of more recent vintage, U.S. Pat. No. 4,204,376 to Calvert (1980) depicts a finished strip adapted to engage a wall and the upward flaring flange of a bathtub. This invention shows a molding attached over the bathtub flange wherein a nail is driven through the molding and the bathtub flange and into the wall. The lower extended portion of the molding is then folded up to overlap and snap onto the back molding section, thus covering the nail heads. No way is provided of eliminating the fracturing and splitting of the bathtub flange as the nails or screws are inserted. The upper portion of the molding provides a relatively flat surface to abut drywall and or wall covering to, however the ever enduring crack line between bathtub and wall is only raised slightly and will still require caulking of some sort. U.S. Pat. No. 4,290,154 to Benjamin (1981) provides a somewhat complicated wall mounting bracket that is attached to the downwardly turned flange or skirt of a bathtub and then anchored to the wall with nails or screws. The drywall and or wall covering is then set onto an outwardly running rib that sits on top of and at the back of the bathtub planar surface. This rib provides a resting place for the drywall and wall covering but still leaves the edge portion of both at the planar level, where grouting is essential. U.S. Pat. No. 4,691,392 to Whitney (1987) shows another molding for supporting a plastic bathtub to the wall and of overlapping this molding with a piece of decorative molding. This molding precludes the use of wall tile and the like and provides no waterproof joint at its upper surface.
U.S. Pat. No. 2,143,034 to Sakier (1939) and U.S. Pat. No. 4,829,731 to Schulter (1989) both show wall mounted brackets that adapt above the back planar surface of a bathtub, wherein both support the wall covering and or drywall at or slightly above the bathtub planar surface. Neither molding bracket supports the bathtub, and both rely on a filling of cement, rubber or plastic molding, or adhesives to provide their waterproofing. With neither molding has the need for grout or caulking been eliminated.
U.S. Pat. No. 3,827,086 to Seymour, et al. (1974) and U.S. Pat. No. 4,080,710 to Hess (1978) show bathtubs with wall enclosures that do provide adequate watertight joints where their preformed walls join the bathtubs. However, they require nesting, bolting, or other joining means that would be of no use to a bathtub intended for use without these preformed walls. We have shown a history of wall mounting devises and water repelling ideas that in one way or another fall short of consumer needs.
Attention is now turned to the waterproofing needs at the base of the front wall of the bathtub. U.S. Pat. No. 1,615,881 to Lucke (1927) shows a metal plate extending along the edge of the bathtub front wall, at the base, which has a pocket filled with an elastic tar-like sealing substance.
U.S. Pat. No. 2,526,883 to La Barre (1950) shows an extensive labor intensive bathtube base form that requires the laying of the wood flooring after the bathtub is set on the subfloor. It further requires a large amount of adhesive or grout that would be very difficult to induce behind the molding. In both figures, as shown by La Barre, the floor covering abuts the face of the steel structure at the base of the bathtub. Moisture will penetrate this joint and seep under the floor covering onto the steel structure and then onto the flooring. The use of caulking has not really been eliminated. U.S. Pat. No. 2,267,513 to Waterman (1940) shows a bathtub front wall base where the floor covering material is coved upward under the face wall of the bathtub. This patent requires the cutting and fitting of some or all of the following: an angle metal strip; a flexible sheet such as lead, copper, waterproof fabric, or the like; as well as structural lumber and or wood cove stick. This is a very labor intensive concept that does not properly protect the upper edge portion of the floor covering from moisture. The upper edge portion of the floor covering is also not sufficiently held into the back wall, and no accommodation for waterproofing at the ends of the bathtub base is provided.
Canadian Patent 568,363 to Magee (1958) shows a one-piece molding which is applied to the junction of the wall and floor for use in construction of buildings of fire resistive construction, in order to achieve a straight, true, and level plaster wall to floor finish treatment. Magee does not claim any waterproof properties, nor do I feel it can be shown he intended or anticipated the use of this invention attached to the structure of a bathtub base. Were it used as such, it would be found to have many shortcomings.
One experienced in the installation of flexible floor covering material is knowledgeable of the following. The vinyl floor covering used today is highly susceptible to expansion and contraction with changes in temperature and humidity. It is therefore of uppermost importance to provide an adequate surface, sufficient adhesive, and proper pressure of floor covering into adhesive and onto the area being covered in order to achieve proper bonding. If even one of these three requirements is not met, the floor covering will not fully bond, and in time, improperly adhered portions will expand and contract until they blister or crack, at which point the waterproofing quality is lost, and replacement is necessary. Metal molding and plastic surfaces are poor bonding materials for floor covering adhesive. The Magee patent did not allow for these needs. As floor covering is inserted in and up a cove, it tends to lay over at the top edge, and it is difficult to hold it tightly into the upper back wall while the adhesive cures. The Magee patent did not provide for this. The depending lip, the metal edge protruding downward which overlaps the end section of the floor covering, is thin and sharp of edge and can catch the upwardly forced floor covering and create difficulties for the installer. Briefly, the Magee molding is not user friendly and can stand major improvements, as can the previous cove molding shown by Waterman.